Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

a reply to: Phage

If mankind caused the problem then mankind deserves the consequences.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Back in the 60`s we were heading into a ice age and now we are heading into a warming age .

According to a few scientist, yes, there were indications of a cooling trend. On the other hand, there were at the same time, far more scientists who were concerned about warming caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.
CO2

a reply to: Bluntone22

We can deal with it in 100 years - we have all the technology to not only fix it, but help solve a lot of related environmental issues that come with the same dirty sources causing the climate change problem.

What's happening though is a lot of powerful people making butt-tons of money off those dirty sources have no interest in these solutions, resist them vehemently, and push all the anti-science propaganda you see trying to convince everyone there is no problem.

Every time I end up explaining this scenario on ATS (which is many) I can't believe I have to end up explaining this scenario on ATS.

a reply to: Phage

Yea it has been dry in California the past while . Of course it has been dry in the past as well . How many have died because of the drought .....do you suppose that the water management of California could be better served towards the public then maybe the large Agra groups siphoning off more then their fair share .. Corporations are people too you know ....lol

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Phage

If mankind caused the problem then mankind deserves the consequences.

And doesn't "deserve" to do something about their mistakes?
I don't think I like your world much.

a reply to: mc_squared


I realize people are getting rich with the dirty sources but you know darn well they will get rich cleaning up the planet to.
Soros just bought a million shares of coal stocks in a company he helped bankrupt.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Yea it has been dry in California the past while .

I thought those melting glaciers were a good thing. Except maybe when they melt and the water ends up in the ocean, I guess.

do you suppose that the water management of California could be better served towards the public then maybe the large Agra groups siphoning off more then their fair share .

Maybe. But the farmers (not all "large Agra groups") are using ground water. That's not where most drinking water in California comes from.

a reply to: the2ofusr1
No, the vast majority of scientists in the 1960s and 1970s supported AGW. Only a small group of scientists pushed the coming ice age and the media hyped it.

It appears you are the one who is ignorant of science history here.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I realize people are getting rich with the dirty sources but you know darn well they will get rich cleaning up the planet to.

And that's bad?

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Phage

If mankind caused the problem then mankind deserves the consequences.

And doesn't "deserve" to do something about their mistakes?
I don't think I like your world much.

I didn't say we should go out quietly. I said we will have to put on our big boy pants and deal with the problems we have caused. And if we can't repair the damage then yes we deserve the consequences of our actions.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I said we will have to put on our big boy pants and deal with the problems we have caused.

There are all too many who disagree. Or, more accurately, insist there are no problems.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bluntone22

I realize people are getting rich with the dirty sources but you know darn well they will get rich cleaning up the planet to.

And that's bad?

No, it's realistic.

a reply to: Bluntone22
It's also an incentive to develop ways of dealing with the problem(s).

a reply to: Bluntone22

What makes more money: consumption or conservation? Uninhibited economic growth, or balance and sustainability?

We can cherry-pick specific examples and throw them back and forth all day, but just look at the bigger picture.

One of these agenda represents true greed, while the other may be tainted by it in places no doubt, but the end destination is a much more respectable place.

a reply to: Phage

So even in the scientific community there is not a complete consensus . Facts about adjusted data ,manipulated and cherry picked data . proxies unreliable . computer models that diverge with every hour from reality ....seems theat the 21st century has produced a group of scientist willing to go to no lengths to make their studies say what a group (IPCC) would like them to say ....too bad its`far from the truth ...

a reply to: the2ofusr1

So even in the scientific community there is not a complete consensus .

You mean 100% agreement? Of course not, there never is. That's a strawman argument.

Facts about adjusted data ,manipulated and cherry picked data

Do you know why data is adjusted? What manipulated data? What cherry picked data?

computer models that diverge with every hour from reality

No.

seems theat the 21st century has produced a group of scientist willing to go to no lengths to make their studies say what a group (IPCC) would like them to say

Seems you know next to nothing about the science or the IPCC.

a reply to: jrod

and the media hyped it.

today they are hyping the other side . MSM is only a tool for tptb to create public opinion . The politicians love it that way

a reply to: the2ofusr1

today they are hyping the other side

You mean the "side" that has a great deal of evidence to support its position? You mean the "side" which consists of a great majority of climatologists instead of a handful?

This is a very well presented post and probably the best one I've seen on ATS. I would make this reply longer if I wasn't composing this message through an Xbox, so I'll be brief.

¤ I think the estimated value of 0.25% for the mass of water vapour in the atmosphere might be a little low. According to the NASA's Earth Fact Sheet water vapour makes up on average 1% of the atmosphere by concentration with N2 and O2 accounting for about 99%. Let's say that the average molecular mass of N2 and O2 in the atmosphere is ~15 and water vapour is ~44 that implies that water vapour makes up about 3% of the atmosphere by mass.

¤ The paper apparently showing observational evidence of a radiative-imbalance of ~0.20W/sq.m/decade on CO2 absorption wavelengths unfortunately exists behind a pay-wall.

¤ I disagree that all natural forcings have been eliminated. A study a few years ago found a decrease in cloud cover of 1.56% over 39 years which (assuming a general decrease in clouds) corresponds to an increase in radiative forcing of 3.4W/sq.m. Clouds have net-cooling effect, hence why I say 'general decrease'. My old blog-post 'Could clouds be responsible for the late 20th century warming' would still pop-up on Google. It's very short though.

That's about it. A very well presented post overall. If only more posts on ATS were like this.

EDIT: I hope that water vapour mass calculation is correct. I might have overlooked something obvious.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

How about before you continue trying to drag this thread into the same old meme-filled denialist ditch, you just go read the OP. Where are the computer models in there? Who corrupted the 10 year old verifying the science himself? You're bringing up the usual ignorant nonsense about corrupted science and 1970s ice age scares - how does that fit in with the 19th century scientists who were already predicting the warming we've now come to see - how did Al Gore get to them?